Last Wednesday, Parliament unanimously approved amendments to the “abortion law”, clarifying that pregnancies can only be terminated if the woman’s condition is “in great jeopardy which may lead to death”.

The changes were described as a “victory for life” by lobbyists who, when the law was first put forward last year, had argued that the way it had been worded would have led to the introduction of abortion in Malta. Now that the new version was passed by Parliament, the “Int Tista’ Ssalvani” coalition claimed victory saying that the changes were a direct result of its opposition to the original bill.

Conversely, the Voice for Choice coalition responded by saying that the new amendments, which were approved, are vague, unworkable and dangerous, and will lead to vulnerable pregnant women being left permanently disabled or dead.

The enactment of the new law does not mean that the debate is over. The topic has been on the public agenda for decades, coming up every now and then in what is now a battle between two camps: the pro-life and the pro-choice.

The subject surfaced again last summer when a foreign woman, who miscarried, had to be airlifted off Malta to be treated. As expected, and as it has always done, it sparked controversy.

The Labour government, backed by the pro-choice lobby, defended the original bill to the hilt, while the Nationalist Opposition, supported by the pro-life group, decried it as a law that would introduce abortion. In the end, Labour changed its position.

A termination of a pregnancy is not allowed if there is a risk to health in the widest sense of the word, as was the intention of the original bill presented last year. According to the law that was passed last Wednesday, a woman must be at risk of death to access an abortion, and then only after three specialists give the go-ahead. The legislation, which has been approved, allows one doctor to terminate a pregnancy only if the mother’s life is at immediate risk.

So, the first question is, what changed between last year and Wednesday’s parliamentary approval? The answer to this is simple – the Labour government (and party) realised that it stood to lose votes if it ploughed ahead with the original bill. Its grassroots were not happy that Labour was “introducing abortion” which, it was pointed out, had not been on the list of pledges that the PL made in its electoral programme before the 2022 election. Surveys that were carried out in the past months showed that the number of people who opposed abortion (and the law as originally presented) was bigger than the number of people who supported it.

So, the second question is, did Labour change its position because it was convinced that it was in the wrong, or did it do so because it was losing votes? The latter answer is more likely.

While Nationalist exponents were consistent in their opposition to the original bill, Labour MPs (and officials) openly endorsed it and, although they ended up voting with the government in favour of the amendments, it is possible that, in their heart of hearts, they still believe that the original bill is the better option.

For one thing, MP Rosianne Cutajar, who was part of the government at the time the original bill was presented, but who has since resigned from the PL parliamentary group, wrote that the amendments are “not enough”. It’s probable that there are other Labour MPs who think like her.

There is another consideration that needs to be made. This involves the President of the Republic, George Vella, who declared that he would rather resign than sign a bill that “involves the authorisation of murder”. If the government had retained its original position, it would have run the risk of creating a constitutional crisis.

Let us remember that President Vella had been harshly criticised last year when he had gone abroad after Parliament passed a bill amending laws related to IVF, which law had then been signed by the Acting President Frank Bezzina. President Vella had expressed misgivings about the IVF bill, and his overseas trip had been interpreted as a way to allow for the bill to be signed by his substitute. The abortion topic is a more contentious issue than IVF and we believe that President Vella would not have chosen the same road as he did last year.

Then again, President Vella’s term in office expires next year, and the name of the new President – and his or her convictions – will give clues as to what Labour intends to do in the future. The decision between a conservative and a liberal president will make Labour’s intentions clear of where it intends to go on abortion in the future.